Amid the uneven currents of global geopolitics, the Arctic continues to be a critical terrain where strategic ambitions of big powers collide. With Russia recalibrating its nuclear posture and Donald Trump returning to power, the region is likely to witness a fresh wave of military and economic manoeuvres. These moves are not confined to regional setting; they hold immense fallouts for global stability, nuclear deterrence, and the fragile balance of the Polar ecosystem. As the Arctic gains renewed attention, its future carries great significance far beyond its icy expanse, shaping the contours of international security.
The Arctic Terrain in Russia’s Nuclear Policy
The Arctic has long been integral to Russia’s defence strategy, given its vast, remote, and sparsely populated terrain, which makes it an ideal region for military activities that require secrecy and minimal civilian exposure. Historically, the Soviet Union utilized the Arctic for extensive nuclear weapons testing, particularly at Novaya Zemlya, where approximately 130 nuclear detonations took place between 1955 and 1990. The infamous Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear device ever detonated, was tested here in 1961, indicating the region’s significance for Russia’s nuclear ambitions.
Today, as Russia faces increasing pressure from the West over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the Arctic is becoming a focal point for Moscow’s military strategy. President Vladimir Putin has accelerated efforts to modernize its nuclear arsenal, conducting large-scale drills and signalling a shift in nuclear doctrine that could lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. In late October, Russia conducted comprehensive nuclear exercises, launching missiles from various platforms, including the Plesetsk spaceport and nuclear submarines in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. These exercises were overseen directly by Putin, who framed them as a necessary response to “emerging external threats.”
This emphasis on nuclear readiness highlights Moscow’s growing reliance on its strategic arsenal, especially as its conventional forces have been strained by setbacks in Ukraine. According to Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, these exercises were designed to simulate a nuclear counterattack, demonstrating Russia’s readiness to respond swiftly to any perceived threat. The message to NATO and its allies is clear: Russia is prepared to escalate, even potentially to the nuclear level, if it feels its core interests are under threat.
Shifting Doctrinal Thresholds
Russia’s nuclear strategy has undergone significant changes in response to what it sees as an increasingly hostile international environment. The Biden administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review raised alarms about Russia’s potential use of low-yield nuclear weapons to ‘de-escalate’ a conventional conflict—a doctrine often referred to as “escalate to de-escalate.” This strategy implies that Russia might resort to limited nuclear strikes to force adversaries into a ceasefire, particularly if it faces the risk of a conventional military defeat.
Putin’s recent comments, combined with recommendations from his advisors like Sergey Karaganov, suggest that Russia is considering lowering the thresholds for nuclear use even further. Karaganov has advocated for a more aggressive nuclear posture to ensure Russian victory in Ukraine, hinting at possible doctrinal shifts that could justify the use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks from non-nuclear states allied with Western powers.
This shift is especially concerning given Russia’s substantial arsenal of non-strategic nuclear warheads, estimated by the Federation of American Scientists to be one of the largest in the world. As of early 2024, nearly 95% of Russia’s nuclear triad—land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and air-launched systems—has been modernized. This modernization drive not only strengthens Russia’s strategic deterrent but also signals a readiness to use these capabilities in more flexible and potentially pre-emptive ways.
Environmental and Social Impacts
While the strategic calculus behind Russia’s Arctic militarization is clear, the environmental and social costs are often overlooked. The Arctic’s fragile ecosystem is already vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and Russia’s renewed nuclear activities risk compounding these challenges. The deployment of nuclear-powered icebreakers, submarines, and even floating nuclear power plants like the Akademik Lomonosov in the Chukotka region has raised alarms among environmentalists and regional communities.
Sherri Goodman and Katarina Kertysova have highlighted the growing risks of nuclear incidents in the Arctic, where poor management and limited oversight could lead to environmental disasters. The potential for radioactive contamination is particularly concerning for Indigenous communities, who rely on the Arctic’s ecosystems for their livelihoods. The “lichen-caribou-human” pathway, where radioactive particles accumulate in lichen consumed by caribou and eventually ingested by humans, shows the unique vulnerabilities of the region. A nuclear incident here could have long-lasting consequences not just for the environment but also for the health and well-being of local populations.
Given the potential for catastrophic outcomes, Goodman and Kertysova advocate for enhanced transparency and confidence-building measures. They suggest that Arctic states and international bodies like the IAEA should establish a military Code of Conduct specifically for the Arctic, along with early warning systems and emergency preparedness protocols to mitigate the risks of unintended incidents.
Trump’s Return: Implications for the Arctic
Amidst this backdrop of nuclear posturing, the re-election of Donald Trump could significantly alter the dynamics in the Arctic, according to observers, particularly in the context of energy policy and sanctions. During his first term, Trump adopted a confrontational stance on arms control, withdrawing from key agreements like the INF Treaty, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Open Skies Treaty. His administration’s hostility towards the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons further demonstrated his preference for military strength over disarmament. Joe Cirincione argues that while Biden’s nuclear policy has been flawed, a Trump return would be far worse. Biden has backed record nuclear budgets, missed chances to control Iran’s nuclear program, and lacks a clear plan for North Korea. In contrast, Trump’s potential policies, outlined in Project 2025’s manifesto by conservative groups, would accelerate nuclear arms development, dismantle global arms control, and likely spark new nuclear programmes globally. The agenda, supported by seasoned Trump officials, aims for a radical overhaul of American democracy, openly pushing a blueprint for sweeping changes.
Meanwhile, some experts suggest that a second Trump term could provide some relief for Russia’s Arctic LNG projects, which have been targeted by a barrage of sanctions from the Biden administration. Ana Subasic, an analyst at Kpler, notes that while existing sanctions may not be entirely lifted, Trump’s past rapport with Putin could lead to a more lenient approach, allowing Russia greater flexibility in manoeuvring its energy exports. However, any relaxation of sanctions would likely be tempered by Trump’s “America First” agenda, which prioritizes expanding U.S. LNG exports to dominate global markets.
Ben Seligman, a specialist in Arctic energy, argues that Trump’s policy could strike a balance between strategic interests and maintaining a competitive edge for U.S. energy firms. This approach could see a slowdown in the imposition of new sanctions, possibly easing the pressure on Russia’s energy sector while still protecting American economic interests.
The Erosion of Arms Control and the Risks Ahead
Beyond the Arctic, the global arms control situation is under severe strain. The suspension of the New START Treaty by Russia in early 2023, following years of strained U.S.-Russia relations, has left the world without a crucial framework for nuclear transparency and limitations. The treaty, which was last extended in 2021, had been the final remaining arms control agreement between the two nuclear superpowers, capping deployed strategic warheads and providing mechanisms for inspections and data exchanges.
Without robust arms control agreements, the risk of nuclear escalation becomes significantly higher. As the nine nuclear powers—Russia, the U.S., China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—continue to enhance their arsenals, the possibility of miscalculation or unintended escalation grows. The current environment, characterized by a lack of diplomatic dialogue and increasing public threats of nuclear strikes, is reminiscent of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s warning that “humanity is on a knife’s edge” reflects the urgency of the situation. The combination of nuclear modernization, lowered thresholds for use, and the decline of arms control measures creates a volatile mix that could have catastrophic consequences for global security.
The Need for Renewed Diplomacy and Cooperation
As the Arctic becomes a new front in the global power struggle, there is an urgent need for renewed diplomatic efforts to manage the risks. The Arctic Council, once a platform for cooperation on environmental and security issues, has been sidelined by geopolitical tensions. Reinvigorating such multilateral forums, alongside strengthening international agreements on nuclear safety and non-proliferation, could help mitigate the risks.
Experts like Goodman and Kertysova advocate for collaborative measures, such as confidence-building initiatives, improved emergency preparedness, and transparency in military activities. Establishing a military Code of Conduct for the Arctic could serve as a first step towards reducing tensions and preventing potential nuclear incidents. Furthermore, involving Indigenous communities in decision-making processes would ensure that their concerns about environmental degradation and health risks are addressed.
In sum, Russia’s assertive nuclear strategy, Trump’s return to the White House, and the Arctic’s strategic significance create a scenario fraught with uncertainty, if not outright danger. As nations increasingly prioritize military might over dialogue, the risk of nuclear conflict looms larger than ever. The Arctic, with its unique blend of geopolitical, environmental, and social complexities, stands at the heart of this unfolding drama.
In this volatile climate, will the international community act swiftly to revive arms control talks, bolster multilateral cooperation, and address the environmental and humanitarian fallout of nuclear activities? The stakes have never been higher, and the cost of inaction could be catastrophic—not just for the Arctic, but for the world at large.
[Photo by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
K.M. Seethi is ICSSR Senior Fellow and the Academic Advisor of the International Centre for Polar Studies at Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He also served as Senior Professor and Dean of International Relations at MGU.
